How real is the fake news problem?
If 2017 already has a buzz word, it could well be 'fake news', but just how big is the problem? In this guest post David Hickey, director Meltwater ANZ, explores the issue and argues journalistic integrity and research have taken a back seat as news organisations chase eyeballs and create clickbait.
Social media has completely transformed the way we create, distribute and consume news. In the past decade, it has become a driving force in shaping political beliefs and online and offline behaviour. In fact, Telsyte’s recent Australian Digital Consumer Study found that online news is now considered the most influential medium for Australian businesses and consumers, with one in three respondents accessing news through social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. Amid ongoing reports citing the prevalence of fake news stories circulating social media during the recent US election, we have seen journalistic integrity and research take a back seat in the pursuit of clickbait.
Social media v news media
Social media has become somewhat of an echo chamber in which the content, pages and even people that we engage with in the online space increasingly serve to confirm our own personal biases. This is no mistake.
The socialisation of news is a hallmark of the digital age. Algorithmic formulas across social platforms now pick and choose what we do and do not see, selectively exposing users to content that aligns with their own opinions, interests and social and political sensibilities.
But perhaps what’s even more interesting is how social media events are increasingly shaping the mainstream news agenda. You need to look no further than Donald Trump’s strategic use of Twitter throughout last year’s US presidential election to divert and shape the news to suit his own agenda.
Take the lawsuit against Trump University that was recently settled in November for example. Even after winning the election, he continues to deflect any negative sentiment by diverting the public’s attention to other activities. Any significant coverage of Trump’s $25 million fraud case settlement was overshadowed by the media frenzy that ensued following a tweet by Trump demanding that the cast of Hamilton apologise to Mike Pence after he was booed at a performance that same night. In fact, analysis from Meltwater shows that on the day the news broke, the incident around Hamilton dominated international news, consuming about 56% share of voice compared to Trump University.
The reality is that this is the output of one man — imagine how many other people and businesses engage in a similar strategy to Trump, yet we just don’t see it.
As news stories continue to unfold in real-time, media outlets have a duty of care to uphold journalistic integrity at all costs. But a 24/7 news churn cycle and the pursuit for eyeballs has meant sufficient research and fact checking are often bypassed in favour of clickbait articles or at worst, fake news and misinformation.
The rise of fake news
The potential profit to be made from online advertising is what is driving the fake news industry at this very moment, and with 85c of every $1 spent on online advertising going to Facebook and Google, there is money to be made.
A recent news analysis by BuzzFeed News found that in the final three months of the US election campaign, the 20 top fake news stories on Facebook produced more user engagement than the 20 top real news stories from verified news websites.
The difficulty in determining what is real and what is fake has alarming effects due to its influence over consumers who are easily swayed by what they read. President Trump is again a prime example of this. With 46 million followers across his personal Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts, his reach and influence extends globally and is often a source of news that’s influential enough to drive and sway hundreds of pieces of media stories (real and fake) through one post.
Just earlier this month Trump used his personal Twitter account to accuse the CIA of leaking an unverified dossier, which allegedly says that the Russian government holds compromising personal information and Trump’s financial entanglements. He accused the CIA of spreading ‘fake news’ about him, using his Twitter account to defend himself and shape the media stories that were published, all the while discrediting certain media outlets as ‘fake news’ if they reported on his actions negatively.
Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans – FAKE NEWS! Russia says nothing exists. Probably…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2017
Whether intentional or not, social media technology has moved far beyond a platform that was initially intended to facilitate communication and networking between users, to a filter that has completely disrupted the way that audiences and organisations access, distribute and consume news.
As fake news and misinformation continue to circulate, journalists are faced with the challenging task of remaining competitive in a landscape that has become somewhat indifferent towards the principles upon which their practice is based. Facebook understands the impact of fake news on their site, having just announced its ‘Facebook Journalism Project”, a sign that it’s taking a more active role to filter out fake news.
While there’s still a long way to go in understanding the socialisation of news, we should not see social platforms as only a threat — after all, social media feeds into the news agenda, and vice versa. Instead, we should challenge journalists to focus on stamping out misinformation, and using Google and Facebook as platforms to gain audience eyeballs in different ways.
Fake news is a problem, but it’s a lesser part of the wider shift.
The bigger issues are the social media echo chamber effect (as mentioned in the post) and the incentivization of clicks.
In the first instance, Facebook – by far the most popular social network in Australia (reaching 71% of all AUS internet users) as well as the rest of the world – is built on an algorithm that learns your preferences and shows you more of what you engage with, be that through Likes, comments, even the time you spend reading a post after clicking through. Users have also learned to switch off those with opinions they don’t agree with by unfollowing, helping them narrow their inputs to only those that support their viewpoint. In the past, similar filtering was possible – you listen to the same radio station every day, read the same newspaper, and they’ll reinforce a certain point of view. But the difference with social is that the information is coming from the people you know, the opinions you put more trust in, making the effect more significant.
On the second point, because clicks are currency for online publishers, they’re now incentivized to write more divisive, controversial headlines – those that, again, help reinforce people’s pre-existing beliefs. Yes, it would be great if we could see balanced, reasonable headlines, but ‘Trump open to using nukes’ is gonna’ get more clicks than ‘Trump discusses nuclear policy’. That hyperbolic approach means the news itself becomes fuel for division, with each headline giving more power to each side of the argument. You don’t agree with the headline, you stop following that outlet. You don’t agree with the person who shared it, you switch them off. But because the headlines are so heavily weighted one way or the other, there’s no grey area, no in between. You’re with us or against us. Agree with this, or you’re wrong.
And of course, the majority of people (some reports suggest up to 80%) only ever read the headline any way.
As the author notes, Facebook have announced they’re taking action against fake news, but they’ve repeatedly stated – even just last week – that fake news itself is only a very minor element on the platform. It’s a problem, yes, and it should be stamped out, but focusing on it diverts from the bigger issues that are much more difficult to resolve.
User ID not verified.
Most of the negative news, as Trump calls it, (because it is about him); is true!
He is a rogue, a crook, a bully, a sexist, a liar, an embarrassment. He is an awful human being and a great example of the money or nothing culture of greed that so many of us wallow, day in, day out.
Prior to social media Murdoch took care of fake news…
User ID not verified.
Nice irony : fake president complains about fake news.
User ID not verified.
He’s not fake now! Enjoy the next four years.
User ID not verified.
Unlike newspapers, you can’t start reading digital media from the back page.
You CAN, however, dodge stories of little interest. We all do it.
BTW did you hear Malcolm Turnbull is going to declare Australia a republic and himself first President?
It’s not true, but I’d like to hear him deny it.
User ID not verified.